skeptic

Kudu; From what I have read in the historical material I have, and also can discern to some extent from old time scouters' stories, and even many photos from the early days, backpacking was not a particularly normal thing. They used trek carts and wagons, as well as pack horses or mules, and carried minimal personal gear in rucksack type gear. Not to say they did none at all, but the other types were far more common. Of course day hikes were a huge part of the program. Often leaders would cart the main gear to a site, and the scouts would then hike to meet them. I suspect that many scouts of that period would be really surprise how much gear is now backpacked by the scouts themselves, without wheels or four legged friends. Of course, the gear is no where comparable, so it is not apples to apples. Summer camps were far different then too. Most were individuals going, rather than troops; occasionally a patrol. Most were at least 10 days to 3 weeks. They did have their version of group cooking; most camps had a regular cook that fed the scouts and staff from a kitchen of some kind; often a tent and outdoor stove, but eventually camps had real cook houses. Halls were not overly common, but large eating areas were, under canvas of some kind. Tents were often very large, holding more than the two common today. While your desire to see BSA go back to what you see as its best years has many positive points; you really should consider that even then, they were always evolving. Many of the serious outdoor troops do things today that scouts then would never have imagined; and they do them more safely, and with far superior equipment. And I have seen a lot of very successfully "boy led" units over the years, with good patrols which can, and sometimes do function separately. Still, that element really does need a lot of strengthening, I would agree; especially in those units that are pretty much assembly lines led by adults. Ironically, the two largest troops in our council, with the best patrols, also turn out large quantities of Eagles. Having sat on many of their boards, seen them at COR's, and also counseled them at times, I can assure you that their skills are pretty good overall.

Am with John in K.C. on this too; bring on the POX. Also bring back the Clinton structure, including actually under budget.

Scoutmaster, or SM has a secondary meaning, "silent member". This was near the end of a page long discussion of meeting ideas and concepts. Amazing how simple it can be.

National Council is trying to take "outing" out of Scouting. BSA hates atheists, agnostics, and Gays. Anyone should be able to join BSA, even if they do not want to work within its rules and traditions. Boy Scouts are all "sissies" and other negative labels indicating weak and lame.

Here is the link to where the report was found. I was not really aware of this particular part of the National site, and find it pretty interesting. Take a look; it is surprisingly helpful in some areas, and actually appears to try and address some things brought by we "trench peons". At least a step in the right direction it seems to me. http://scout-wire.org/2011/12/

Thanks Moose' for your expansion and clarification. Well done. Point of course is that ultimately, it comes back to our own personal convictions and thought process.

Merlyn; You ARE NOT a Scouter, so whatever you do or do not believe makes no difference in this context. You have a complete right to your "non-belief". It just has no place within the Scouting program. Your problem, and many others', is that somehow God, and god have become confused. A God is a specific entity in which someone believes, something greater than self, normally a spiritual idea with certain higher power perhaps, or not; while gods are generic. But, there is really no point in pointing this out to some, as you will continue to argue that you are right, and everyone else is wrong if they disagree. So do so, that also is your right. Just please quit trying to interpret Scouting as something you truly understand or in which you and your opinion have standing. Scouting without God, of some personal decision, would not BE Scouting. JMHO of course.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Please do not forget that in the Scouting context, none of this is connected, except as personal beliefs of a particular scouter. ALL religious ideas are acceptable, as long as they admit something greater than ourselves; and that direction is determined at the family and personal levels. So, the Bible is only one of the many possible sacred texts that may or may not apply to this discussion. I truly do not get how so many continue to not fully understand this very important aspect of Scouting. Yes, a unit sponsored by a specific church or other religious institution may have special requirements for their members; but the members can still choose to accept or not. They may decide to go elsewhere if they feel uncomfortable with their unit; but the idea of God, in the broad, more ephemeral definition, is a personal decision, period. And, if one is not able to admit some form of personal belief beyond self, then he should look outside of the Scouting program. It is a choice.

Yeah Beavah!

drmbear; If you read B.P.'s writings, they are full of religious references and belief in a higher power. He too felt that Scouting needed to have a foundation built on a spiritual base. But he also recognized that its content would and should be dictated by the family and the scout themselves. No where did he ever indicate a complete separation of spiritual beliefs from the program. If you want Scouting, as it was created, then it MUST have that personal spiritual connection. Now, the other element should, IMO, be a local unit decision.

Moderators; please consider moving this to its appropriate forum. It really should be in the Politics and Issues.

"Does Scouting give any educational guidance in abuse issues to either the Scouts or the Parents?" Not sure how anyone could have been on these forums for more than a year, and who supposedly is involved in the program, could even ask this question.

Two factors related to this that I perceive are that the most common ages for leaders that are also parents is between 30 and 50 or so. As kids, they were in the downside of the failed experiments of the 70's, plus the backlash against anything remotely smelling of military connection. So, many did not receive the best scouting programs, or suffered from the stigma, so to speak, if they were scouts. Many opted simply to not be involved, or their parents chose to not allow them to do so. Of course, today, there appears to be a shadow of the "parenting overload" showing up. Many of the youngest potential leaders not only were not scouts, but were over protected to the point of developing a fear of failure and the outdoors. And those that were scouts, often did not learn the depth of skills that were more common pre 1965 or so. That being said, every leader's potential is only reached should it be important to her or him, and they care enough to learn so they can teach. JMHO

Fred8033; The way things are in our local schools now, shop classes are almost gone. So, maybe these kind of badges could be more popular again. Learning a trade could be very useful, as we have far too few in the basic ones now. And, lets be truthful; they make good incomes if they are just able to do it; and if they are really good, they can almost name their price in some fields.

Calico; Was no Perry Como either; and I would agree that is a mistake too. But, it was a list most likely made by people 2 or 3 decades younger than us. Bing being on top though, is right I think. Yah, I finally got my first cell June, 2010 when I was preparing to go to the Jambo. Have no text keyboard, so rarely text. Go days without using it, and sometimes simply forget I have it. But, it is good for emergencies, especially on the road. Been good for an occasional scout to parent contact too, which likely shortened wait times coming back. Also was good to have at camp this past summer, due to a couple of issues we had. Still discourage them for scouts. Do not want to see or hear them, unless absolutely needed.

So, just for fun, what Christmas or holiday songs or singers make it seem like the season to you? KLOS this morning ran a top ten list of songs by particular artists which was somewhat surprising, though number one was not. It was of course, Bing Crosby and "White Christmas"; and Nat King Cole's "Chestnuts Roasting" (cannot remember the actual title) was there as well. Andy Williams was not, which came as a bit of surprise to them, and frankly, to me. I grew up with the Bing Crosby Christmas music, as well as Nat, Gene Autry (Rudolph), and traditional carols. But also enjoyed some later versions of old titles by Johnny Mathis, Pat Boone, Dean Martin, and of course Karen Carpenter (what a gorgeous voice), Amy Grant, Beach Boys, and Brenda Lee. Boy am I old. Then there are the not to be forgotten classical pieces of tradition, always done with big choirs and lush orchestration. At the other end are the Spike Lee pieces, Chipmunks, and barking dogs, among others. Even sort of enjoy a couple of the really recent odd ball pieces, though cannot name them.

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/12/07/tennessee-home-burns-as-firefighters-watch/?ncid=webmail3 Here is an extreme example of what could happen if our community governments are either politically resistant, or simply broke. Is it right; some here seem to lean that way, based on their comments about health care and indigent people.

Part of the maturity issue is directly related to our not allowing them to grow up normally anymore, the exact thing that the recent article talks about. There was a time in this country where by 16 you often were already raising a family and working your land, or in a mill, or some other type of gainful employment. While I understand that many "experts" today say that the adolescent brain is not fully developed until the late teens to early twenties, I sometimes wonder if that was always the case. Is it possible, that by NOT allowing kids to challenge themselves as much as was common a hundred years or more ago, we have simply set the development back? Just a thought. Am not a psychologist, but I did not see any indications that my grandparents or great grandmother were particularly ill effected by fending at an early age. My GGM was married at 14 to the 15 year old neighbor, and they were in the Oklahoma Territory soon after. Only my maternal grandmother went past 8th grade, but they seemed to be able to function very well. One grandfather ran his own business for 40 years with a 3rd grade school level, the other eventually an electrical forman and worked at Cal Tech. Point is, they all had to scramble to survive around the turn of the 20th century, and they were better for it. We are possibly out of balance a bit today.

I was subbing in an eight grade history class last week, and they were on the ratification of the constitution, which included the conflicts of opinion between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. One of the book's bullet points was that Anti-Federalists were concerned about too much power in the central government, and also about a leadership group that would simply become another aristocratic group. I could not help but think about the arguments going on today about Federal versus States' rights. But I also had to think that the Anti-Federalists' fears may have occurred, based on the current group of so called leaders in congress. They pretty much appear to feel they are above the rest of us, for the most part. Of course, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists DID come to an agreement, or we would not be here today. They did something called "COMPROMISE". Where have I heard that word before?

Yes!!

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/the_age_of_overparenting/

Are not unemployment taxes a state item? If so, then please connect the dots for me.

Is currently a series of things about the Waltons TV show on the net, and also the Today show earlier this morning. The 40th anniversary of the original movie, and 30th anniversary of the show ending. Most of the cast was on the show this morning, and is now on tape on the net. It is interesting to read the comments of fans, obviously positive; but they also appear to indicate how many people perhaps miss the seemingly simpler life then, even in tough times. That there are quite a few younger people that are fans I find surprising. Really not scouting related, other than the ideals that we still try to hold up. Also, Erik Scott, who played Ben, is an Eagle Scout. I attended his COH in the San Fernando Valley when I was the district NESA rep in 1976.

Do people know what socialism IS? NO! Beavah, you are so cynical; how can you say such a thing? Oh, because it is true!

Our council carries them, but it is optional. Have to make sure the mail popcorn commissions every year; they only do it if you tell them to. Not really comfortable with the council having control of money for our unit, as they are always running on the edge financially. So, we have opted out so far. Think it may be a viable option for larger units, especially cubs, where they have a lot of supply needs. We are so small that we seldom spend more than $30 or so on awards, other than right after summer camp.